Consider this your election cheat sheet to find out what Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are promising to do as they vie for the nation’s highest office. Here’s where the candidates stand on top economic and personal finance issues.
Both presidential candidates want to lower prices and slow inflation, but whether a president can directly do so is less certain. Inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, has already slowed to 2.4%, well off its pandemic-fueled peak.
Trump:
Place tariffs on imports. Trump wants to place a 10% to 20% tariff on all foreign imports; up to 60% tariff on imports from China; and 100% to 200% imports on automobiles produced in Mexico. He says his tariffs would support U.S. manufacturing and raise revenue. But experts from all over the political spectrum say that his tariff plan is more likely to increase prices in the U.S.
Lower gas prices. Trump has pledged to increase oil and gas production on federal lands. The president’s ability to lower gas prices is limited as the price at the pump is more directly influenced by global market forces.
Weaken the power of the Federal Reserve. Trump says he wants to bring the Federal Reserve under the power of the president; experts say it could weaken the central bank’s credibility in making interest rate decisions.
Cap credit card interest rates at around 10%. The average credit card interest rate is 21.51%, according to Federal Reserve data from May 2024. It would require Congress to enact and would likely face legal pushback.
Nerd out on investing news
A NerdWallet account is the smartest way to see the latest financial news and what it means for your wallet.
Harris:
Ban price gouging. Harris wants to create rules that would prevent corporate grocers from raising prices arbitrarily. The ban would require approval by Congress. Critics say her plan is mainly an election promise rather than a sound economic policy.
Lower prescription drug costs. Harris plans to extend to all Americans a $35 cap on insulin and $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses for seniors. She also wants to make it quicker and easier for Medicare and other federal programs to negotiate prescription drug prices. Experts say her plans could be effective in bringing down costs, but will face pushback from Big Pharma lobbyists.
Increase the minimum wage. Harris says she would push to raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15 per hour, up from the current minimum wage of $7.25. The federal minimum wage hasn’t been touched since 2009 and raising it would require approval in Congress.
The campaign proposals that would most directly impact consumers are tax cuts and credits.
Trump:
Extend tax cuts in his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that are expiring at the end of next year. The TCJA includes estate tax cuts and individual income tax cuts.
Replace personal income taxeswith tariffs. His new plan would place a 10% across-the-board tariff on foreign imports with much more for China. More on that above.
Lower the corporate tax rate by one percentage point. Trump wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 21% to 20%.
Implement R&D tax credits for businesses. The tax credits would allow businesses to write off 100% of expenses in its first year, including machinery and equipment. It’s a reversal of his 2017 tax cuts that phased out write-offs for R&D expenses in a business’ first year.
Harris:
Increase taxes for the wealthy. Harris wants to raise the net investment income tax up to 5% on those with incomes above $400,000. She also wants to increase the highest tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28% on taxable income above $1 million.
Increase taxes for corporations.
Expand Child Tax Credit: Harris wants to increase the credit to $6,000 for children under the age of 1; $3,600 for children ages 2-5; and $3,000 for older children.
Permanently extend the expanded premium tax credits for those who purchase health insurance through the health insurance marketplace.
Increase tax incentives for small businesses. An increase in federal tax incentives from $5,000 to $50,000. The deduction would be available to new businesses until they turn a profit. The incentive feeds into her goal of creating 25 million new small businesses in the next four years.
No tax on tips: The candidates’ aims are vastly different, but there’s one proposal they both support: exempting workers from paying taxes on their tips. But experts say it’s just bad policy that doesn’t get to the fundamental needs of tipped workers.
Health care
When it comes to health care, the candidates have been light on the details, although both candidates promise to protect Medicare. Here’s where they differ.
Trump:
Revisit the Affordable Care Act. Trump tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act in his first term, but was unsuccessful. During the presidential debate on Sept. 10, he was asked if he would try again. In response, Trump said he had only “concepts” of a new plan.
Push for vitro fertilization (IVF) coverage. Trump has said the government or insurance companies should cover IVF, though many in the GOP oppose the idea.
Leave abortion laws up to the states. He says he would veto any federal ban on abortion.
Harris:
Expand Medicare coverage to include long-term care including at-home care for seniors and those with disabilities. She also promises to provide vision and hearing benefits for seniors under Medicare.
Work with states to eliminate medical debt.
Lower prescription drug costs. See above.
Protect access to IVF.
Restore federal protections for abortion access under Roe v. Wade. Harris also promises to ensure there will never be a federal ban on abortion.
Harris wants to increase housing and make it more affordable while Trump has emphasized market-driven solutions. There are two areas that both candidates agree:
Open up federal lands for new housing developments. Neither has specified which lands that would include, but experts say much of the federally held land would not be ideal for creating new housing. There is precedence for using federal land to build housing; most available land is in the West.
Cut red tape. Reducing regulatory burden has bipartisan support, but most housing reform would need to be done at the local level to have an impact.
Harris:
Build 3 million new homes over four years. Experts say her proposals would likely spur additional new housing creation, but building 3 million new homes in that short of a period of time is unlikely.
Add tax incentives for home builders. Harris proposed a new Neighborhood Homes Tax Credit to create 400,000 new owner-occupied homes in lower income communities and a tax break for builders that construct affordable starter homes.
Create a$40 billion innovation fund to incentivize stakeholders — state and local governments, as well as private developers and homebuilders — to find new strategies to expand the housing supply.
Introduce$25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. It would be even greater for first-generation home buyers, but has not elaborated how much. It’s unclear how it would be implemented and experts say that without a bigger housing stock, her plan won’t work.
Lower rent and prevent price-fixing among corporate landlords. Experts are skeptical that her plans would lower rent. However, if a significant stock of new housing is created, it could alleviate some price pressures on the rental market.
Trump:
Beyond deregulation and opening up federal lands for home building, Trump’s plans have been sparse when it comes to housing. However, experts say that his plans to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants could drive up housing prices since the construction industry is reliant on immigrant labor.
Student loans
As president, Harris would likely champion student loan relief and free community college. Trump would likely restrict or dismantle loan forgiveness and promote access to non-traditional degrees.
Trump:
Curb debt cancellation. Trump would likely not support broad student loan cancellation or strengthening other forgiveness plans that the Biden-Harris administration has championed. Trump has also said that access to existing loan forgiveness should be restricted, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program.
Dissolve SAVE. Trump is likely to strike down SAVE, an income-driven repayment program that is currently caught up in legal challenges.
Support vocational training. Trump’s platform says it would support creating “drastically more affordable alternatives to a traditional four-year college degree.”
Harris:
Support“Plan B” student loan forgiveness. Harris would likely support Biden’s “Plan B” that would reduce or eliminate accrued interest for 23 million borrowers who owe more than they originally borrowed. The plan is currently wrapped up in state legal battles.
SupportSAVE and other income-driven repayment plans. Harris would likely support the SAVE repayment plan through legal battles. She would also support the continuation of other income-driven repayment plans, including PSLF, as well as the borrower defense to repayment program that protects borrowers who are defrauded or misled by their colleges.
Champion free community college and trade school education. She also says she wants to subsidize tuition at Minority Serving Institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Expand the Pell Grant. She plans to expand grants to 7 million students and double the maximum award by 2029. Pell Grants are given to undergraduates from low-income backgrounds and are currently up to $7,395 per year.
Mass deportations
Trump’s plan to deport unauthorized immigrants, en masse, would have unintended, but significant economic consequences including:
Increasing costs economy-wide. Reduced labor supply that would increase costs for businesses and, ultimately, be passed down to the consumer. It would especially impact the hospitality and service industries that rely on immigrant workers.
Driving up food prices. Immigrants make up a large portion of the agricultural workforce. Without that labor, the food supply in the U.S. could tighten, which would drive up prices.
Slowing housing construction since immigrants play a huge part in the creation of housing in the U.S. This could further worsen the nation’s affordable housing shortage.
Listen: Smart Money’s 2024 Presidential Election Series
Hosts Sean Pyles and Anna Helhoski discuss the grand economic promises made by presidential candidates and the intricate realities of presidential influence on the economy to help you understand the real effects on your daily finances.
Photo of former President Donald Trump by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images News via Getty Images.
Photo of Vice President Kamala Harris by Brandon Bell/Getty Images News via Getty Images.
Welcome to NerdWallet’s Smart Money podcast, where we answer your real-world money questions. In this episode:
Learn how women can excel at investing, overcome financial challenges, and build wealth with practical strategies.
What does it mean to invest like a girl? How can women start investing and overcome financial challenges? Hosts Sean Pyles and Kim Palmer discuss gender differences in investing and practical strategies for women to build wealth. Kim interviews Jessica Spangler, author of Invest Like a Girl: Jump into the Stock Market, Reach Your Money Goals and Build Wealth, about the ways women tend to excel at investing, including taking time to make investment decisions, avoiding rash choices during market downturns, and focusing on long-term goals. They discuss strategies for eliminating high-interest debt, creating a budget that works for your lifestyle, and choosing the right mix of stocks and bonds for personal goals.
Check out this episode on your favorite podcast platform, including:
NerdWallet stories related to this episode:
Auto loans from our partners
Episode transcript
This transcript was generated from podcast audio by an AI tool.
Sean Pyles:
Welcome to NerdWallet’s Smart Money podcast. I’m Sean Pyles.
Kim Palmer:
And I’m Kim Palmer.
Sean Pyles:
On Smart Money, we are all about answering your money questions, and today we’re tackling an intriguing one. What does it mean to invest like a girl? Investing might seem like a topic that needn’t be gendered, but it turns out there are some gender differences, and that’s part of what we’ll dive into today. Kim, in her role as the host of our regular book club series, is here to guide the conversation. So Kim, who are you talking with?
Kim Palmer:
I’ll be talking with Jessica Spangler. She’s the author of Invest Like a Girl: Jump into the Stock Market, Reach Your Money Goals and Build Wealth. Jess is also a popular money educator on Instagram and she has a lot of ideas to share on women, investing and personal finance.
Sean Pyles:
Sounds great. Well, we also want to remind listeners that you can enter for a chance to win our book giveaway at nerdwallet.com/bookclub for our next book club pick. And with that, Kim, I’ll let you take things from here.
Kim Palmer:
Great, thank you. Jess, welcome to our show.
Jessica Spangler:
I’m so happy to be here. Thanks for having me.
Kim Palmer:
Let’s start with what really feels like the most awkward question. Why do women need their own investing book? I mean, don’t we all have the same basic rules that apply to us all?
Jessica Spangler:
Absolutely. The title of this book is intentionally ironic, right? Invest Like a Girl. What does that mean? Well, it’s really twofold. First of all, when you walk into any big box store, you’re pretty much bound to find ballpoint pens for women or razors for women or even laxatives for women. Really, there’s nothing fundamentally different about these products. They function just the same for people of all genders. There are differences about investing when it comes to women, even though the fundamentals of investing are the same for everyone.
For example, women are more likely to be the primary caretakers in the home, whether that’s taking career breaks or stepping down to part-time to help raise children or even to take care of our aging parents. On top of that, we are more likely to live longer. And so we have longer periods of retirement and higher health care costs as we age. Those factors compound together to equate to lost savings over time. This investing gap needs to be made up so that we can fund these factors that really differentiate us in retirement.
One might think then, the second half of the irony of the title, Invest Like a Girl, there’s similar sayings, hit like a girl, punch like a girl. Well, the thing about investing actually is that women are very good at it. When you look at the data, Fidelity did an unbelievable, wonderful study called the Women in Investing Study that actually showed that women, while we often hesitate to start investing and while our numbers are growing, we hesitate to get started. But actually, when we do, we wind up earning higher returns on average than men.
Kim Palmer:
That is so fascinating to me and that really jumped out at me from your book. What explains that?
Jessica Spangler:
There are some differences that were noted in the study. In particular, women were more likely to take their time when making investing decisions. In fact, the stereotype that women are probably going to be more emotional investors and might be more likely to make rash decisions, well, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. We actually do more research. We are less likely to make split-second decisions. We’re less likely to sell in a market downturn that is likely just a temporary fluctuation. And we’re more likely to have long-term goals and plans that we see to and stick through even when times get tumultuous.
Kim Palmer:
Given the importance of investing for women for all the reasons you just laid out, how can women get started with investing and make it a little bit easier?
Jessica Spangler:
This book, Invest Like a Girl, it’s really designed to be a guideline that will walk you through step-by-step exactly how to get started investing, and it’s really divided into two parts. The first half is really laying the framework for all of the investing lingo, breaking down all of the background information that you need to know about stocks and bonds and index funds and really getting into the finer details about informed decision-making so that when you get to the second half of the book, you have a whole bunch of sample investment portfolios laid out for you so that you can find one that seems to align the most with your goals, and then you can sort of tweak and tinker with those portfolio samples so that they’re really customized to you using all of the information that you learned in the first half of the book.
Kim Palmer:
You’re also a big advocate of the idea that you don’t have to have a trust fund or a lot of money to get started. Do you have to have a certain amount? I mean, when should you get started?
Jessica Spangler:
There is no denying that people that grow up with money absolutely have a leg up. There’s no denying it. But those people are already going to be investing. They’re already going to be utilizing these age-old tools that they’ve known about for generations, whether we do it or not. No matter how much money you have or what background you come from, there is real power in getting some skin in the game.
And you don’t have to have any amount of money, really. Nowadays, you can start with as little as a dollar to purchase fractional shares of a stock. I think that’s a really common misconception about this barrier of entry. Of course, I want to acknowledge that there is very real wealth inequality and there are people who absolutely have a leg up, but it is possible to improve your financial footing no matter where your starting point is with any amount of money using the tools that are in this book.
Kim Palmer:
Do you think that it’s important, just to take a step back, at someone’s overall personal finances? If you also have a lot of high-interest credit card debt, for example, or you don’t yet have an emergency savings fund, should you focus on that first before you think about investing, or do you suggest kind of just doing everything all at once?
Jessica Spangler:
There’s a great section in the first half of this book called Out of Debt and Into the Game. One of the things that we talk about is differentiating between high-interest debt and low-interest debt. When we think about high-interest debt, these are essentially interest rates that are going to exceed the average returns that you can expect in the stock market. And so, when we have really high-interest debt like credit card debt that can be much higher than 7%, going all the way up into 20%, 30% interest rates, it’s going to be really hard to benefit from investing when that interest rate on the debt is going to be taking two steps back every time you take one step forward.
We do talk about the strategies to eliminating high-interest debt in this book, because that really is important before you get started with investing. And of course, like you said, having an emergency fund is absolutely essential so that you’re not digging into your savings when life throws curveballs at us, as it always does.
Important to say that I do think often we feel as if we need to have no debt at all in order to start investing. This idea of you can’t have any student loans whatsoever, you’ve got to pay off your mortgage, that’s just not the case. If we can optimize our debt so that we are eliminating high-interest debt and still maintaining things that hopefully have a lower interest rate, something like federal student loans, whereas we may pay off our private ones if those have higher interest rates, we can really optimize our personal finances so that we can still benefit from the great wonderful compound interest of investing.
Kim Palmer:
Let’s dive into some of your other specific strategies. I know there’s a lot to unpack, but a few things that jumped out at me that maybe you could give us an overview of. You talk about how important it is to figure out your net worth and think about your cash flow. Could you just help us understand what that means exactly?
Jessica Spangler:
The gist of it is that your net worth is really everything that you own minus everything that you owe. It’s really just a snapshot. It’s a picture in time of what your assets are looking like versus what your liabilities are looking like. It really says nothing about necessarily the future of your financial standing or how successful or not you may be at investing. It’s really just a snapshot of where you’re at right now, how much money do you have in assets that you own, and how much money are you spending on liabilities or debt. We just calculate net worth by subtracting your outstanding debt and the money that you owe from your assets and the money that you own.
Assets may be cash. That’s an easy one. It could also be the value of your home if you own a home. It could be valuables, jewelry, furniture, things that have value, things that you could sell for cash. Whereas liabilities, the money that you owe, often we’re talking about loans here, the value of your student loans, the value of the mortgage on your home. If you have the value of credit card debt, you would subtract that number from your assets to get your net worth, and that’ll give you just a snapshot in time of where you are in terms of what you owe versus what you own.
Kim Palmer:
Perfect. And then you can work on growing that.
Jessica Spangler:
Exactly. It’s important to know where you’re at so that you can figure out where you’re going.
Kim Palmer:
And with the cash flow idea, is that basically you’re trying to get a handle on your budget just to understand your money going in and out before you start making any investing decisions?
Jessica Spangler:
Exactly. I think budgets can be really boring and dry and bland kind of conversation for a lot of people, and it’s something that even I just naturally feel kind of averse to because oftentimes it feels so strict and so stringent that it’s just really hard to find something that fluctuates with daily life as it does. But having a good budget means taking a look at all of your money, where it’s coming in, where it’s going, so that you can make room for things that you value. I think that’s really what differentiates a good budget from just an Excel spreadsheet that isn’t really doing anything for you.
A good budget helps you see what is going on with your money so that you can prioritize spending it on things that you love, whether that’s vacations or time with your family or investing. It’s being able to have an idea of the full clear picture so that way you can set aside that extra money for investing.
Kim Palmer:
And then when you are ready to turn to investing, you talk about picking the right mix of stocks and bonds and other investing vehicles. And obviously the best choices are going to vary so much by person. Can you give us an overview of how someone makes those choices for themselves?
Jessica Spangler:
Like you said, it really is such a personal decision. There are a lot of factors that go into why someone may lean more stock-heavy in their portfolio versus bond-heavy in their portfolio. Generally, we’re thinking about a couple different things. First of all is your risk tolerance. This is how much you can deal with fluctuations in the market.
Stock market crashes are normal. It’s a normal part of the market cycle. Even just normal fluctuations in the market, it’s very normal. Some people are totally comfortable with those fluctuations, and they don’t mind seeing their portfolio drop by 30% one year and be up by 30% the next. That person would be more likely to choose a stock-heavy portfolio where equities can fluctuate more rapidly on a regular basis.
A person who wants less risk in their portfolio, that person may be more likely to purchase something like bonds, where the value is less likely to fluctuate, and as long as you purchase government bonds, you are going to get what you put in at the end plus interest. Those ratios in your portfolio can change accordingly.
The other part of the equation is time horizon. How long you have before you need to access the money can really greatly impact what kinds of decisions you decide to make. For example, if you’re relatively young, you have 30-plus years before retirement, you may be very comfortable investing more heavily into stocks and equities because you have 30 years between now and the time that you have to actually think about withdrawing some of that money in retirement. So whatever kind of roller coaster the stock market takes you on in between now and then is really inconsequential so long as 30 years from now you actually net positive. Whereas somebody who’s retiring in the next couple of years and has built up this really solid nest egg, they might be a lot more cautious when investing 80% or 90% of their money into stocks and equities because when their retirement party is 50-something weeks away, they’re going to want to make sure that their money isn’t fluctuating heavily right before they get to retire and sit on a beach somewhere and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
There’s lots of other things to think about, but those are two of the main factors when it comes to selecting your ratio of equities and bonds and all the other different types of securities that we talk about in the book.
Sean Pyles:
More of Kim’s conversation with Jessica Spangler is coming up in a moment. Stay with us.
Kim Palmer:
A lot of people are also concerned about the social and environmental impact of the companies they’re investing in. Is that a good thing to consider? And if you do want to think about that, what’s the best way to evaluate it?
Jessica Spangler:
That is definitely something that we talk about in the book. Environmentally sustainable investing is a topic of growing importance and growing conversation. And more and more data is really coming out about it. It’s often hard to know what a company is reporting in terms of their financials and how that actually holds up on the back end with what they’re doing to be sustainable. There are some markers that we can look for when it comes to more equitable and sustainable investing, whether or not the companies are really transparent in their reporting process, whether that’s emissions or how they are having their products tested and rated for environmental grading groups.
In the book, you’ll read about various certifications that companies can go through to do that. There’s also the topic of diversity and equity and inclusion in the actual upper ranks of the company and whether or not they’re following through in some of their mission statements to include various groups into the higher levels of the executive company. But that said, and we talk about this in the book as well, it’s important to also look out for greenwashing or this concept of appearing to be particularly sustainable or equitable by using terms that don’t really have a clear definition, terms that make a product perhaps seem as if it may be sustainable when in fact it’s not.
I always encourage investors who are interested in sustainable and equitable investing to look into some of the documents and the literature that each individual company will post as part of their annual report and their reporting documents to the SEC, and those are mentioned in more detail in the book, but it really does require a pretty substantial amount of research to really determine whether or not a company is following through on their promises.
Kim Palmer:
Can you share some of the lessons you’ve learned yourself as an investor? Have you personally changed your strategy at all or made mistakes along the way?
Jessica Spangler:
I think that one of the biggest things that I’ve learned is that more complex is not necessarily better. And what I mean by that is I think there’s this tendency, the more you learn about investing and the more you learn about personal finance, to feel like you have to do these increasingly complicated investing maneuvers like, “Okay, I’ve got to have 4% this and 6% this and 12% that, and I should probably incorporate a little bit of this,” when frankly, most of the data suggests that those of us who invest primarily in a well-diversified balanced index fund that represents either the total stock market or the S&P 500, so the top 500 companies in the United States, we typically statistically outperform some of these major professional hedge fund managers who spend all of their time and money manipulating all of these different ratios and portfolios to find the perfect investment. Really keeping it simple can actually be more profitable, and that’s definitely something that I’ve learned over the years.
Kim Palmer:
In the book, you also say a lot of choices around investing really circle back to what your goals are. What are some examples of a short-term goal and a long-term goal that maybe investing could help us achieve?
Jessica Spangler:
When we think about financial goals, I tend to separate them into three different categories: short-term goals, medium-term goals, and long-term goals. Now, when I think about a short-term goal, I’m talking about one to two years, generally. And for a very short-term goal, like maybe you’re saving for a down payment on a house and a high-yield savings account, that might not be something you actually even want to invest for at all. If a goal is so short that it’s right around the corner and you really want to have that money flexible and available to you, a high-yield savings account might be the perfect place to put that money so that you still have access to it in cash, but you’re getting a higher interest rate than you would in a standard run-of-the-mill savings account.
Now a medium-term goal, which now we’re thinking between three to seven or maybe even as far out as 10 years in the future, this might be something that you’re saving for in the long-term. Maybe you are investing to make a major payment on a loan that you already have. Maybe you are looking to invest in some other property. Maybe you’re looking to invest for retirement or for a really great wonderful vacation or a backpacking trip or something that’s still three to seven years down the road. Once we start to think in that kind of time horizon, that’s when we start to focus a little bit more on investing.
Of course, for longer time horizons—10, 15, 20, 30 years out—that is when investing really shines because the longer your money is able to stay in the market, the longer you are able to take advantage of compound interest and really watch your money grow. It’s a lot harder to say that you will certainly make money in the stock market in a one to two year span when fluctuations are almost certain than it is to say that you’ll make substantial profit three to seven to 10 to 30 years out in the future where you have plenty of time to accumulate that nest egg and really work towards more far-out financial goals.
Kim Palmer:
If you do have money invested, it can be so stressful if there’s a news day where suddenly the stock market is just plunging. Putting it in the context of the fact that some of these goals are long-term, do you recommend we pay attention to these daily swings?
Jessica Spangler:
Personally, absolutely not. I mean, that’s just so stressful. And for what? If your long-term goals are far enough out in the future that it’s really not something you need to pay attention to, the only thing that really matters is that 20 years from now, 30 years from now, whatever that longer-term time horizon is for you, the only thing that matters is that in the future you walk away with more money than you put in today and not less. What happens on the day-to-day is just noise, and there’s really no reason to get caught up in it. If you’ve got your long-term vision in mind and you’ve got your goal at the end, you don’t need to get caught up in all of the market mumbo jumbo.
Kim Palmer:
For anyone listening who’s wondering why it’s so important to learn how to invest and create financial security for yourself, you share a really powerful story at the beginning of the book about your family and what you experienced growing up, what really inspired you to take control of your finances. Do you mind sharing that story here?
Jessica Spangler:
Absolutely. I grew up in a middle-class family. My dad worked in construction as a carpenter and my mom was a stay-at-home mom. When I was seven years old, my dad passed away very suddenly from a heart attack, and nobody saw it coming. He was this tall, manual labor job, slender dude. It was totally out of left field, and it was a life-defining moment for me and for my mom. We lost my dad, which was obviously emotionally devastating on its own, but we also lost our only source of income. And neither of my parents went to college. My mom didn’t have a degree where she could just go out and pick up a good-paying job. She really had to figure it out for herself and for her kids. And as women do when they’re faced with any trying situation, she just got it together. She pulled through. She took some classes and started working in real estate, and went on to become this amazing award-winning realtor. She is my biggest inspiration.
But through this whole time, I really learned by osmosis. I went to listing appointments with her. I went to settlements. I walked through open houses. And as fate would have it, in 2008, the housing market wound up crashing. And once again, we really lost our sense of financial stability. It taught me at a really young age, I don’t want to rely on anyone for money. I want to have my own source of income. I want to be able to provide for myself financially and I want to have a sense of control and choice and power in my own financial life.
Neither of my parents went to college, so of course my first instinct in all of this was that of course, I should go to college. I should go all the way and get a doctorate, which is what I wound up doing. But it wasn’t until so many years later when I learned that my paycheck was enough to survive. It was enough to live. And for that, I’m grateful, so grateful because absolutely not everyone can say that. But it wasn’t really enough to retire. It wasn’t enough to really set away a nest egg and to make sure that I was comfortable forever.
What I really had to start thinking about was investing. How do I actually provide for myself so that I never need to rely on anyone, not now or not in the future? I taught myself to invest. I learned everything I could online about investing and got started doing it myself. And here we are all these years later, writing a book and trying to help in some way so that other women feel empowered and feel that they have agency in their own financial future so that they have the choice to leave a job that doesn’t fulfill them or leave a relationship that isn’t safe or just retire on a beach somewhere. Whatever it is that your goal is, it’s possible to have financial independence and it’s something that I spent my whole life looking to achieve, and here we are.
Kim Palmer:
Thank you so much for sharing that. It is definitely so inspiring. Do you have any closing thoughts to share with our listeners?
Jessica Spangler:
I am a huge proponent of women having the agency and the ability to make their own choices in any capacity. And being financially independent, being financially educated gives you that choice. It gives you access, it gives you agency, and it gives you real independence. I just want women to know that if there’s any doubt that they can’t, they absolutely can. There is an entire book of data and numbers and strategies and step-by-step guidance that will show you that you are more than capable. You are great at it.
Kim Palmer:
I love that. Jessica Spangler, thank you so much for joining us on Smart Money.
Jessica Spangler:
Thank you so much for having me.
Kim Palmer:
Yes, that is all we have for this episode. To share your thoughts on money, shoot us an email at [email protected]. This episode was produced by Sean Pyles and myself. Tess Vigeland helped with editing. Megan Maurer mixed our audio. And a big thank you to NerdWallet’s editors for all their help.
Sean Pyles:
Visit nerdwallet.com/podcast for more info on this episode. And remember to subscribe, rate and review us wherever you’re getting this podcast. You can follow the show on your favorite podcast app, including Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and iHeartRadio to automatically download new episodes.
Here’s our brief disclaimer. We are not financial or investment advisors. This nerdy info is provided for general educational and entertainment purposes and may not apply to your specific circumstances.
Kim Palmer:
And with that said, until next time, turn to the Nerds.
Barring sudden changes, the national average price of gas looks like it could soon drop below $3 per gallon for the first time since May 2021. It’s an arbitrary threshold but it feels significant. 2021 prices? That’s practically pre-pandemic!
As prices fall, drivers are regaining some buying power at the gas pump. To show how much, let’s say you have $20 to spend on fuel, and you’re paying the national average for regular gas (as of Oct. 28).
At the current U.S. average price of $3.13 per gallon, you could buy about six gallons for $20, filling roughly half a tank. (Gas tanks typically hold between 12 and 15 gallons of fuel, according to JD Power.)
Compare that to a year ago: Gas cost $3.50 on average, meaning you could buy a little more than 5.5 gallons for $20.
In June 2022, when the national average peaked at $5.02 per gallon, $20 would get you just four gallons — roughly a third of a tank.
Gas prices vary widely by state. In fact, 20 states already pay less than $3 per gallon for regular gas, while it’s still above $4 per gallon in three states. Here’s what $20 will get you in the states where gas is priced highest and lowest:
Highest: California. 4.35 gallons at an average price of $4.60.
Lowest: Texas. 7.5 gallons at an average price of $2.67.
The table below shows how far $20 goes where you live.
Is $3 per gallon cheap now?
After two years of high inflation, your reaction to $3 gas (or your state’s equivalent) might be complicated. Falling prices might bring relief to your budget. But you also might scoff at the hoopla over a price that’s still a far cry from what you’d consider “cheap gas.”
Maybe $2 per gallon is more what you have in mind as the threshold for better gas prices. That was the national average 20 years ago, and we got a recent taste of it when gas prices plummeted in the early days of the pandemic in 2020. (It was a short-lived shock driven by the sudden evaporation of fuel demand.)
It’s true that if you were driving in 2004 and had the same 20 bucks to spend on gas, you could’ve bought four more gallons than you can now. But there’s a twist: In 2004, you didn’t have the same $20. After all, we’re talking about inflation, which not only impacts prices but also wages.
When comparing prices over time, the underlying question is about affordability, says Jeremy Horpedahl, an economics professor at the University of Central Arkansas. To measure affordability, it’s more helpful to compare the price of a particular good to wages. “That tells you, can people buy more or less of the good than in the past?”
Measuring the affordability of gas
If you think about spending on gas in terms of how long it takes you to earn that $20 now compared to 20 years ago, you might be surprised at how affordable gas actually is.
The average worker earned $30.33 per hour in September 2024, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The data tracks the average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector, and Horpedahl recommends using it because it’s a broad-based metric that excludes managerial wages that would skew the numbers higher. It’s also the most up-to-date.
For comparison, the average hourly wage was $23.68 in September 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. And the average worker earned $15.78 per hour in September 2004, when gas prices hovered around $2 per gallon.
Based on September’s average hourly rate, it now takes about 40 minutes for the average worker to earn $20. Spending that on gas (at the current national average price) gets you a little over six gallons of gas. Buying the same amount of gas took 41 minutes of work in 2019 and 43 minutes in 2004.
So, for the moment, and despite the roller coaster of the last few years, it’s like gas prices have hardly changed at all.
With the holiday shopping season inching earlier every year, one of the biggest questions for shoppers comes down to timing: When should you start buying gifts?
If you start too soon, you could miss out on some of the best sales. But if you start too late, you could pass up your chance at discounts and free shipping offers before the cutoff dates. And if you shop all season long, you risk racking up spending over three months.
To strike the right balance, money experts say plan early, but wait until prices drop to buy items on your list. That means having a conversation with friends and family about your holiday budget and expectations now.
“Budgets can be a great tool for communication,” says Daniel Goodman, certified financial planner and founder of Good Better Best Financial Planning in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
He suggests talking early with the entire family, including children, about everyone’s values and priorities for the holidays. Then set reasonable gift budgets.
“When families can identify what’s most important to them, it becomes easier to make intentional financial decisions and ensure their holiday spending reflects those values,” he adds.
Here are more ways to get an early start on holiday planning without overspending.
Remember what happened last year
“It’s really good to look at your credit card statement from [last] January,” says Trae Bodge, a shopping expert at TrueTrae.com who is based in the New York area.
That reminder can motivate you to scale back spending this year.
“Revisit your gift-giving budget and make some tweaks. Also, look for spending traps,” Bodge says, such as overspending on coworkers or hosting too many holiday parties.
Andrea Woroch, a consumer savings expert in Bakersfield, California, likes to start her holiday shopping by taking inventory of what her family already has at home.
“It’s such a good reminder to see all the toy clutter that I don’t have to go overboard,” she says.
Get more financial clarity with NerdWallet
Monitor your credit, track your spending and see all of your finances together in a single place.
Start with a list, then wait
Making a list upfront of what you want to buy each person and how much you plan to spend can help keep you on track.
“If you’re organized and have a list, you can just look for those sales and respond accordingly,” Bodge says.
For example, when you see prices on electronics dip during Black Friday sales, you’ll be ready to buy, while you can wait on winter-related items such as sweaters that aren’t likely to fall in price until further into winter.
Toys tend to fluctuate in price in the months leading up to the holidays, so it can pay to wait for a specific deal, Bodge adds. You can use a tool like CamelCamelCamel or the PayPal Honey browser extension to track prices.
Check store policies
When you’re shopping early, it’s worth checking the return and price-matching policies of stores, Woroch says.
“You don’t want to get stuck with something you can’t return,” she adds, or get hit with a surprise restocking fee.
When it comes to price-matching policies, many retailers offer price adjustments for up to two weeks after purchases. That means if the price drops after you buy, you could be eligible for a refund. Just be sure to save your receipts and follow the store policy, Woroch says. Special sales such as Black Friday prices are often excluded from price matching.
Make some purchases now
“We are settling into a new normal where we’re doing a lot of holiday shopping in October,” Bodge says, partly because retailers host early sales.
One benefit of that approach, Bodge says, is that you can spread your holiday shopping across multiple months, making the expenses easier to bear. But it’s still important to take time to shop around and make sure you’re actually getting a good deal, she adds.
Resist the urge to splurge
Bodge says that even though her business has grown, she hasn’t upped her holiday spending to reflect that increased cash flow. In other words, she resists the urge to give in to the impulse to overspend at the holidays.
NerdWallet’s Holiday Spending report found that 10% of holiday shoppers will likely need to use some of their emergency savings to buy holiday gifts this year and 9% will prioritize gift buying over some of their regular bills.
Scaling back can lead to a more financially joyous start to the New Year.
Get more financial clarity with NerdWallet
Monitor your credit, track your spending and see all of your finances together in a single place.
November is a great month for bargains. Black Friday happens this month after all, and the supposed single-day sale holiday seems to get stronger and go longer every year. Plus, online retailers like to keep you guessing and may drop a worthy deal on any given day.
Your strategy to save money this month? Review your budget, make a list of what you want and remember to ABC: always be checkin’ (or just set deal alerts) for discounts. Consult this Nerdy list of the best things to buy and skip in November, too.
Buy: Electronics
Black Friday, which falls on Nov. 29 this year, is synonymous with great deals on gadgets, but you may not have to wait until the end of the month to get the goods you’re after. Jane Boyd Thomas, a professor of marketing at Winthrop University, says she’s noticed retailers are getting an early jump on technology deals.
“We know that a lot of spending on Black Friday is self-giving, not gift-giving,” says Thomas. And with consumers still dealing with high prices in non-discretionary categories like food and fuel, retailers can entice shoppers to spend discretionary dollars with deals that come early and often.
Look for markdowns on TVs, tablets, laptops, gaming systems, smartwatches and smartphones at all the usual places — Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Target and Costco — between now and Black Friday.
Skip: Bedding and linens
Need a thicker comforter for the cold months? January is just around the corner, and it’s your best bet for a deal on bedding and linens. Stores promote bedding discounts, called white sales, at the beginning of each year as a way to bring shoppers into their home departments.
In past years, bedding basics were slashed by 50% or more at stores like JCPenney, Macy’s and Pottery Barn. We expect similar savings again in 2025.
Before you build a budget
NerdWallet breaks down your spending and shows you ways to save.
Buy: Vacuums
Aside from spring cleaning season, November might be the best time to add a new vacuum cleaner to your closet. We usually see vacuum models from Dyson, Shark, Bissell, Hoover and more on sale during Black Friday events.
At NerdWallet, we tracked prices on a handful of products during major sale days. The iRobot Roomba i5 vacuum had a lower price on Black Friday 2023 than on Amazon’s Prime Day in July of this year. Expect sweeping sales on high-tech sweepers to land at the end of the month.
Skip: Clothes
This is unconventional, but to save money you may want to wait on apparel — especially items like shoes, hats, coats and gloves — says Thomas.
“As we get closer to Christmas, I think the deals on those are going to be better and better,” she says.
November, especially Black Friday, isn’t a bad time to buy clothes, but larger retailers that hold a lot of stock could be eager to offload unsold items as the gift-giving season gets closer. Stores like Gap, Anthropologie and Ann Taylor are likely to have more inventory than one-off boutique clothing stores, “so you have a better chance of getting what you want by playing the ‘wait game’ there,” says Thomas.
Buy: Air fryers and coffee makers
Air fryers burst onto the scene around 2017, and the versatile cookers are still hot. Black Friday is a good time to go after these hot products, or you could score a deal on any given day in November.
I found an Instant Vortex Plus air fryer for half off list price on Nov. 5 last year. The shiny stainless steel model caught my eye while at a friend’s house for dinner one evening. I checked Amazon when I got home and couldn’t pass up the $69.95 price. At the time of this writing, it retails for $139.95. I got a Black Friday price on a random Sunday in November.
What else is hot in November? Coffee makers. Look for great deals on Nespresso, Keurig and other popular coffee maker brands in November, especially on Black Friday. On the other hand, you may want to roll the dice and wait for Cyber Monday — which falls on Dec. 2 this year — for other kitchen gadgets. We’ve seen items like the KitchenAid Classic Series stand mixer reach a lower price on Cyber Monday than on Black Friday at Amazon and Target.
Skip: Specialty food items
You know that meat and cheese board or tin filled with peppermint bark you send to family when you run out of time and gift ideas? According to Thomas’ advice, you can keep specialty treats as your backup plan.
Retailers may not be motivated to move items quickly because seasonal treats tend to have a long shelf life and people often send them as last-minute gifts, she says.
Bonus: Veterans Day
Veterans Day doesn’t pack the shopping punch of Black Friday. Still, here are some bonus ways to save a buck on Nov. 11.
If you serve or have served in the military, ask about special discounts at stores, restaurants and even barbershops. For example, Rack Room Shoes will offer a 20% discount (normally 10%) to current and former U.S. military members and their dependents. Sport Clips is doing free haircuts for vets and active duty military at participating locations on Veterans Day.
Whether you’ve served in the military or not, you can visit one of the U.S. National Parks that typically charges an entrance fee for free on Veterans Day.
Plan ahead and protect yourself on pre-Black Friday purchases
Mobile shopping and dynamic pricing (e.g., the random air fryer deal I found on Nov. 5) make it all too easy to spend on a whim. Go into November knowing what you want to buy and how much you’re willing to spend on a given item.
If you know what you want, you can monitor and compare prices throughout the month, says Thomas. You can use a site like Slickdeals.net to set deal alerts for price drops all over the internet or use a price tracker like CamelCamelCamel for alerts on products sold on Amazon.
And if you buy something in November, but before Black Friday, you’ll want to check the retailer’s price-matching, price-protection and return policies first. For example, Amazon’s site specifically states that because the retailer strives to maintain competitive prices, it does not offer price matching.
Be sure to dig into the details, too. Best Buy’s price match guarantee, for example, excludes items for sale Nov. 21 through Dec. 2 this year.
Thomas’ advice: Let the store’s policy help you decide whether to take the deal now or risk it and wait for a better one on Black Friday.
Before you build a budget
NerdWallet breaks down your spending and shows you ways to save.
Vice President Kamala Harris is pledging to increase the housing supply and make it more affordable, especially for first-time home buyers.
She’s preaching to the choir of voters who rank housing affordability as a top-three issue in the election — about 25%, according to the results of a survey by Ipsos and Redfin, released on Oct. 15. Unsurprisingly, more renters (31.6%) rank housing affordability as a priority issue compared to already existing homeowners (17.1%).
The current housing affordability crisis is the result of the construction industry’s sluggish return to form following the 2007-2008 housing collapse and the basic laws of supply and demand. As is, there isn’t enough housing available for the number of buyers: The housing deficit grew to 4.5 million in 2022 up from 4.3 million in 2021, according to Zillow, a real estate website.
Housing shortages push up prices and keep them high. When a lack of available housing is combined with years of persistently elevated mortgage rates, it becomes even harder for would-be first-time homebuyers to break into the market.
Then, as fewer people trade renting for home ownership, it puts pressure on the rental market, keeping those prices high, too. As a result, shelter, which includes both home buying and renting, has remained the greatest factor in core inflation growth for years.
The only way to effectively combat a lack of affordable homes is by building more housing. Harris’ housing plans are ambitious — and possibly unrealistic, experts say.
Build new housing
Harris has outlined policies aimed at creating 3 million new housing units over the next four years — a 50% increase over the current rate of home building, according to the nonprofit Urban Institute.
In an Aug. 21 Washington Post editorial, Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, and Jim Parrott, a housing expert at the Urban Institute, called her plans “the most aggressive supply-side push since the national investment in housing that followed World War II.”
To achieve her end goal, Harris wants to provide several tax incentives to kickstart construction:
A new Neighborhood Homes Tax Credit to construct or rehabilitate 400,000 homes in lower income communities. The homes must be owner-occupied. The incentive would operate similarly to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) in that states would receive an allocation of credits for specific projects based on local need.
A tax cut for builders that construct affordable starter homes.
A $40 billion innovation fund to incentivize state and local governments, as well as private developers and homebuilders, to find new strategies to expand the housing supply, primarily through regulatory reform and cutting red tape.
Open up certain federal lands for new housing developments. Her campaign has not specified which federal lands.
An analysis of Harris’ proposal by the Urban Institute says Harris’ plans to increase new housing are not out of line with historic standards. But 50% growth is still a daunting task, and would rely on a number of factors outside a president’s direct control. “What she’s proposed will probably only go sort of halfway or part of the way in achieving that, because achieving a 50% increase in housing production is gigantic,” says Yonah Freemark, a principal research associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute and the research director of the Land Use Lab at Urban.
Other observers see the 50% target as unrealistic. “For anyone who has any knowledge of commercial real estate and the housing industry, that seems like an unachievable number,” says Brian Connolly, assistant professor of business law at the University of Michigan. “But good for her for trying to get there.”
“What she’s proposed will probably only go sort of halfway or part of the way in achieving that, because achieving a 50% increase in housing production is gigantic.”
Yonah Freemark, research associate, Urban Institute
However, her proposals could help spur more construction even if they don’t reach the target, says Connolly. He adds that if the government supports homebuilding through new tax incentives that make it more profitable to build new housing and attract skilled labor, then it could make a meaningful impact on the housing supply.
Harris would need Congress to enact much of what she pledges to do. Of the innovation fund, for example, Connolly says, “She couldn’t just sort of pluck $40 billion out of thin air to deliver to the local government; that would be something that would presumably require congressional authorization.”
What there is bipartisan appetite in Congress for, says Freemark, is reducing regulatory restraints on construction. He says there may also be support for expanding the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which goes toward acquiring, rehabilitating or constructing rental housing for lower-income households. The Democratic National Committee includes expanding LIHTC in its platform.
Make home buying more affordable
A cornerstone of Harris’ housing plans aims to make home ownership — the most traditional vehicle for wealth-building in America — more accessible to first-time buyers. She pledges to provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time home buyers and an unspecified, greater amount of assistance for first-generation homebuyers.
Starter-home buyers could use the help since those homes are much more expensive than they were before the pandemic — 51.1% higher than August 2019, according to a Redfin report released on Sept. 30. But there is one recent positive sign for buyers: Starter homes are less expensive now than a year ago for the first time since August 2020. Homebuyers currently need to earn $76,995 annually to afford a home at the median price of $250,000.
There are already places in the U.S. that provide down payment assistance, so Harris’ proposal isn’t new per se, but its size and scope is, says Freemark. “I think that it has the potential to be quite impactful in terms of expanding access to home-purchasing for a large segment of the population that currently, simply, doesn’t have the ability to assemble enough funds,” he adds.
But when it comes to how assistance is delivered, the devil is in the details. “It will take a lot of thought and, potentially, some experimentation on the part of agencies and others that would be implementing this strategy,” Freemark adds. “Also, this is a potentially very expensive program, so I’m not sure I’ve heard broad enough support in Congress.”
It’s much easier to increase demand than it is to increase supply, says Ed Pinto, a senior fellow and co-director of the AEI Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and Harris’ down payment assistance plan would serve to add buyers to what is now a strong seller’s market. “Unless that were to change, any efforts along the lines of demand increases would lead to substantial increases in prices,” says Pinto.
Connolly agrees. “If we’re not building those housing units and we’re providing people with $25,000 in credits to go out and buy within a stock of housing that is not sufficient, that’s going to result in bidding up housing prices,” he says.
Still, providing credits to first-time homebuyers could be something that both sides of the aisle support, says Connolly. “I tend to be a little more of an optimist about the bipartisan nature of this problem,” he says.
Make rent more affordable
About two-thirds of all homes are owned by the people who live in them, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The other third are occupied by renters and Harris has plans to make their lives less expensive, too. The natural outcome to her plan to make home ownership more accessible would be freed-up rental housing. But she also wants to target corporate landlords in two ways:
End rental price-fixing practices by landlords of large multi-family units that raise rents based on algorithms. She is calling on Congress to pass the Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act.
Remove tax benefits for large corporate landlords that own single-family rental homes. She is calling on Congress to pass the Stop Predatory Investing Act.
Freemark says that generally, there hasn’t been much support from Republicans in Congress to fund housing affordability policies for renters. If Democrats gained control in both houses, then there is some potential to expand funding for those purposes, he says.
But there has been some bipartisan interest in stopping large private investors from purchasing a large share of homes in communities throughout the country, says Freemark. “Getting that policy right is not obvious,” he says. “Just because you don’t like private investors doesn’t mean they’re not playing an important role in the overall housing market. And, you know, you’re playing with a very large industry when you start talking about sort of critiquing the ownership of large corporations. So I don’t know. I’m a little skeptical”
Meanwhile, Connolly isn’t so sure that focusing on price-fixing will be impactful in alleviating high rent prices. “I’m a bit skeptical that, you know, going after representing algorithms is really going to result in decreases in rent or slowed appreciation of rent,” he says. “But to the extent that there’s any impact on the rental market at the margins, that might be possible.”
Cut red tape
Experts agree that reducing regulatory burdens to building new housing is necessary and has bipartisan support. Both candidates have, at least, nodded to that need — Republicans in their party platform and Harris with her $40 billion innovation fund.
“Republicans tend to be more pro-business; they tend to provide tax breaks to businesses,” says Connolly. “And Democrats want to see more housing supply and housing affordability. So that looks like a good way to kind of, you know, marry those two sides of the aisle.”
Still, authority over housing regulations is concentrated at the local level, so there may be limits to what Congress can achieve on the issue.
Open up federal lands for housing
In the past former President Donald Trump has floated a vision of 10 “freedom cities” on undeveloped federal lands (his utopian vision for these cities also includes flying cars). Harris has also said she supports opening up federal lands to build housing, but hasn’t provided details.
The Federal Government is the largest landholder in the country (the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, manages one in every 10 acres in the U.S.) so there’s an inventory of possible land available for development. But there’s a key difficulty with the proposal, says Freemark: “A lot of federal land is not land you would want to build housing on.”
Connolly agrees: “When you look at the map of U.S. federal lands, a lot of them are in very lightly populated areas across the western U.S. where there’s not going to be any demand for housing. There may be federal properties that are underutilized in larger cities that would be appropriate places to build housing … but at this point, I think that proposal, you know, from both sides of the aisle is really unclear in terms of its scope and where that would occur.”
The majority of government-owned land is in the West, and there is precedent for opening it to home building. In July, the Bureau of Land Management announced actions that it said would create thousands of affordable housing units on federal land in Nevada.
Pinto is optimistic about the possibilities. “In areas where there’s plenty of land, you could build an entirely new city,” he says. “Let’s take Utah … the federal government owns [the majority] of land in Utah. Half of that land we’ll call ‘Smokey the Bear’ — national parks, national forests, national monuments, things like that. The other half is just owned by the Bureau of Land Management.”
Trump’s deportation plans could stymie construction
Housing hasn’t been the focus of Trump’s campaign, but the cornerstone promise of his campaign — deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants — could have a direct impact on the housing market.
Trump has claimed that his deportation plans would free up housing, but experts say it would actually worsen the housing crisis since the construction workforce is largely reliant on immigrant labor.
Immigration has not been at the root of the U.S. housing crisis, says Connolly. “To the extent that you have migrants who are, generally speaking, low income or very low income people entering into the market … they’re facing much more dire circumstances than people who are trying to buy their first home or something like that,” he says.
But what Trump’s deportation plans could do is exacerbate a shortage of construction workers.
“I would suspect it is causing some concern for home builders and people in the building industry, because immigrant labor has long been a source of labor for the building industry and not just immigrants from Central and South America, but going back across really our entire history,” says Connolly. “Think of Italian bricklayers, Irish laborers in the 1800s and early 1900s. We have always relied on immigrant labor for work in our building industry. And yeah, the idea that we’re going to go deport a bunch of immigrants, you know, particularly in a time period when we need to be building housing is particularly bad policy.”
Freemark says, “Trump deporting millions of people would be horribly destructive for the housing market. It would make it very difficult to build homes throughout much of the country and it would increase the cost of homes.”
NerdWallet’s 2024 election deep dives
What would the Trump economy look like? Find out where former President Donald Trump stands on economic issues like battling inflation, medical debt, jobs, health care, housing, child care, small businesses and more.
How Trump and Harris aim to address your health care When it comes to health care, the candidates have been light on the details. Harris has focused on things like lowering prescription drug prices; expanding Medicare care coverage; and restoring federal abortion rights. Trump says he supports IVF coverage, but wants to leave abortion to the states. He also said that he has only a “concept” of a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.
Smart Money’s 2024 Presidential Election Series
Hosts Sean Pyles and Anna Helhoski discuss the grand economic promises made by presidential candidates and the intricate realities of presidential influence on the economy to help you understand the real effects on your daily finances.
(Photo by Bruce Bennett/Getty Images News via Getty Images)
Welcome to NerdWallet’s Smart Money podcast, where we answer your real-world money questions. In this episode:
Explore how the 2024 presidential candidates’ tax plans could impact your finances and what to know before voting.
What tax proposals are the 2024 presidential candidates making, and how might these policies affect your finances? What should you know before voting on tax issues? Hosts Sean Pyles and Anna Helhoski discuss the key differences in the candidates’ tax plans and how to make informed decisions to protect your financial future. They begin with a discussion of the importance of tax policy, with tips and tricks on understanding credits and deductions, how taxes fund government services, and the long-term effects of tax laws on your paycheck.
Then, Anna talks to Amy Hanaeur, the executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, to discuss the candidates’ specific tax proposals. They discuss proposals to cut corporate taxes, extend expiring tax cuts, provide child tax credits, and eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits.
Check out this episode on your favorite podcast platform, including:
NerdWallet stories related to this episode:
Auto loans from our partners
Episode transcript
This transcript was generated from podcast audio by an AI tool.
Sean Pyles:
Taxes. Nobody likes them, but it’s how we pay for government, from local police and fire departments to the folks at the national level who make our currency and on and on. So what’s a fair and effective tax structure? That’s an argument democracies have been having since the Greeks came up with the system of government, and it’s an argument that we’re still having in earnest in the 2024 presidential campaign.
Amy Hanaeur:
Two-thirds of the cost of making those individual tax cuts permanent would go to the richest fifth of Americans. So to the richest 20% of Americans. So just for a sense of what that would cost, in 2026 alone, that would cost more than $280 billion.
Sean Pyles:
Welcome to NerdWallet’s Smart Money podcast. I’m Sean Pyles.
Anna Helhoski:
And I’m Anna Helhoski.
Sean Pyles:
This is episode three of our Nerdy deep dive into presidential policy and personal finance. And today, Anna, it’s so exciting. We’re going to talk tax policy.
Anna Helhoski:
Wait, wait, don’t everybody leave yet. This is really important stuff. It has a huge effect on your bottom line, so you should know what the two presidential candidates are proposing to do with your tax dollars and then vote accordingly.
Sean Pyles:
Sometimes it’s hard to figure out exactly what this or that tax policy will do to your paycheck. There are proposals for credits and deductions and write-offs, and it can pretty quickly induce your brain to go on zombie status. But even just the broad strokes are important to understand, so we’re going to go through some of that today.
Anna Helhoski:
And remember, Sean alluded to this at the top of the show. Taxes pay for just about every government service you use. Every time you drive on a highway, every time you call 911. Every time you jangle cash in your pocket. Every time you pay for college with a federal student loan.
Sean Pyles:
Every time you get a letter delivered by the USPS. Every time you go to a national park. Every time your grandparents get a Social Security check. Every time you find yourself in a court of law. And every time you realize that national security is pretty important. All of that is the government at work and it’s funded by the money that comes out of your paycheck.
Anna Helhoski:
Is some government spending ridiculous? Yup. Some of my own spending is ridiculous, by the way, but I digress. You can argue over the size of government. A famous Republican anti-tax lobbyist named Grover Norquist once said his goal was to “reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” But it’s hard to imagine how anything would get paid for if there weren’t taxes, including all those other campaign promises that candidates are making.
Sean Pyles:
Right. How would anything get done if it weren’t for, you know… government? But as we’ve been saying throughout this series, the most important part of all of this is that you are an educated voter. That you understand how the presidential candidates’ tax policies could affect you.
Anna Helhoski:
And then take that knowledge to the ballot box and vote your conscience. Or for a lot of us, take that knowledge to the mailbox after you’ve filled in your ballot at home.
Sean Pyles:
I’ve got to say I really love voting from the comfort of my couch, usually in my pajamas. As we’ve noted previously, we want to say at the outset that we are not here to take sides or fan the flames of an already contentious political season. Our goal here is the same goal that we always have at NerdWallet: to help you, our listeners, make smart informed decisions about the stuff that impacts your finances. Sometimes that means choosing the right credit card for your needs. Other times, that means voting for the candidate who you believe will help you achieve your life and financial goals. All right. Well, we want to hear what you think too, listeners. To share your thoughts around the election and your personal finances, leave us a voicemail or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373. That’s 901-730-N-E-R-D, or email a voice memo to [email protected]. So, Anna, who is helping us sort through tax policy today?
Anna Helhoski:
Today, we’re speaking with Amy Hanaeur. She’s the executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Amy Hanaeur, thank you so much for joining us.
Amy Hanaeur:
Thanks for having me.
Anna Helhoski:
Unsurprisingly, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have introduced some pretty different tax plans. So to kick off our discussion, I’m hoping you can give an overview of what stands out most to you in these plans.
Amy Hanaeur:
I would say there’s a pretty dramatic difference between Vice President Harris’s tax proposals and former President Trump’s tax proposals. It’s one of the biggest policy differences between these candidates.
Vice President Harris has plans to raise revenue from wealthy people and corporations. She’s also a little more concrete about her plans for the child tax credit, which helps middle-class families with children and other families with children. Trump has kind of a history of slashing taxes in ways that largely redound to wealthy people and corporations. He has also put forth some middle-class tax cuts. Those also will go to the wealthiest as well as to middle-class families. So I think his proposals all in all are more expensive and can make it a little harder to pay for the things that are spending priorities for either party.
Anna Helhoski:
Harris has come out with a number of tax breaks, including up to $50,000 for new small businesses, a $25,000 housing tax credit for first-time home buyers, and an increased child tax credit that includes $6,000 for new parents. Would these be effective policies and walk us through their feasibility?
Amy Hanaeur:
I would say that the $6,000 newborn child tax credit along with her proposal to restore the expanded child tax credits for older children that took place during the pandemic are very proven, very effective policies. And we know that the expanded child tax credit cut poverty almost in half. We know that it helped lots and lots of middle-class families. And we know that even at a time when unemployment was sky high, those child tax credits kept the economy moving and kept a lot of families solvent. And the new expanded $6,000 that she’s proposing for newborns is really important because that first year is so important developmentally for children, and so for families to have a little bit more resources in that first year, I think, makes a lot of sense.
The other two things that you asked about I think are a little more marginal in their effect and maybe not the very best approaches. The tax break, the $50,000 for new businesses is a little complicated because a lot of new businesses don’t actually earn enough to pay taxes. And so they would probably stretch that until when they are profitable, and then they would reduce their taxes once they are profitable further down the road. We just don’t think that that makes as much sense as some other approaches. The tax credit for new home buyers is an interesting idea. I think the Vice President is pairing that with some activities on the supply side to make sure that there’s more housing. But I think that those supply-side activities are a crucial part of that because if you just give a tax credit to new home buyers, it could end up driving up the cost of housing. I don’t think it’s the most important or the strongest part of her tax proposals.
Anna Helhoski:
And we need to have more housing supply in order to have more first-time home buyers.
Amy Hanaeur:
Anna Helhoski:
I want to shift over to Trump. He certainly wants to extend the 2017 tax cuts made under his administration, and he said he plans to lower the corporate tax rate even further. Can you remind us what was in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and what is set to expire next year? I know it was a complex law, but if you could give us the highlights.
Amy Hanaeur:
The 2017 tax law really cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21%, and the result of that was that corporate tax payments plummeted, and a lot of huge profitable corporations continued to pay far below the statutory rate. So the rate was 21%, but actually, lots and lots of corporations pay much, much less than that. Our research shows, and the research of a lot of other scholars shows that these kinds of cuts increase income and racial inequality. They also… This is kind of important. They send a massive windfall like 40 cents of every dollar to foreign investors because foreign investors own 40% of corporate stocks. That is just not a very well-targeted proposal, and it would really cost us a lot in revenue, which could reduce the ability of either party to execute on their spending priorities.
Anna Helhoski:
Has the former president said he wants all of those tax cuts renewed? Are there any proposed changes or is it just an extension?
Amy Hanaeur:
The corporate tax rate that I was just talking about is actually permanent, the cut that they already made. But as you said, he’s proposing further cuts to that corporate rate. So that’s a new proposal. That’s not an extension. The part that they made temporary were the individual components of the 2017 tax law, and they did that because it cost too much and it wasn’t possible to pass it with the policy mechanism that they were trying to use at the time because they were trying to do it with only one party’s support. In order to get it below the overall cost limit that is imposed on Congress, they made the individual tax cuts temporary. Former President Trump has said that he wants to extend all of the individual tax cuts that were in that 2017 law.
Anna Helhoski:
What has Harris said about that tax legislation?
Amy Hanaeur:
Well, she has said that with all of her tax cuts, there would not be a situation in which somebody earning less than $400,000 pays more. She has said that for the individual tax cuts, she wants to extend them for those earning less than $400,000 but phase them out over $400,000. I can say a little more about what the 2017 law did distributionally.
Anna Helhoski:
Amy Hanaeur:
If that’s helpful.
Anna Helhoski:
Absolutely.
Amy Hanaeur:
That law as a whole did deliver really large tax cuts to those in the top 1%, and that’s kind of a narrow sliver. I’m talking there about people with income over $800,000 a year. These cuts are the part that expire in 2025, but the Trump campaign wants to make them permanent. Two-thirds of the cost of making those individual tax cuts permanent would go to the richest fifth of Americans, so to the richest 20% of Americans. So just for a sense of what that would cost, in 2026 alone, that will cost more than $280 billion. It really does start to cut into revenue.
Anna Helhoski:
Have you seen any shifts in where Trump’s tax policy proposals are now versus when he was president?
Amy Hanaeur:
I would say that he’s kind of looking to just intensify his previous approach. Now, he’s floated some other things and his vice-presidential candidate has floated some other things, but in terms of concrete things on paper, it’s a little bit more of the same. He talked about, for example, repealing the tax on Social Security benefits. It would lower taxes for US households, I think, by an average of about $550 per household. But it would come with a big price because it would reduce Social Security and Medicare revenues by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
Anna Helhoski:
I want to talk specifically about Trump’s tariff proposal. He wants to do a 10% to 20% across-the-board tariff on all imports and up to 60% for goods from China. He has also suggested replacing personal income taxes with these new tariffs. Amy, how do tariffs on foreign countries and taxes for Americans intertwine?
Amy Hanaeur:
This is a sort of surprising proposal because it’s a real departure from the traditional way that Republicans have approached this issue. And frankly, a departure from how Democrats have approached this issue in recent years as well. Most economists absolutely agree that tariffs fall on consumers, but there can be reasons why advocates for particular industries, sometimes the owners, sometimes the workers, may want them at different times for particular economic development reasons or retaliatory reasons if they think that another country has appropriated a technology or industry that we had previously dominated in. I think what’s really challenging about the Trump proposal is that it is so across-the-board, and also that he hasn’t been very clear about exactly what he would do. So at some times, he has talked about 10% across-the-board tariffs. At other times, he has talked about 20% across-the-board tariffs. That’s a pretty big difference. And then he’s talked about, as you said, the additional 60% on China. An economist named Kim Clausing estimated 20% across-the-board tariffs would cost the typical household $2,600 a year. It’s a substantial hit to families and it manifests itself much in the way that inflation does. It would just be basically every product that every household buys would end up costing more.
Anna Helhoski:
Now, the Biden administration has largely kept the tariffs that Trump imposed during his previous term. What has Harris said about that and her view in general on tariffs?
Amy Hanaeur:
I’m not sure that she has said that much. I think that this is a part of the Biden administration policy that they are perhaps somewhat quiet about. I think it’s challenging to repeal those tariffs for political reasons. But I think from a policy perspective, it’s just important to note that they do fall on households. They’re not as large as those 20% across the board and 60% on China tariffs that the former president is putting forth. So they don’t have the same kind of impact, but it is kind of universally accepted that those kinds of tariffs do fall on consumers in terms of increasing prices.
Anna Helhoski:
More of our interview in a moment. Stay with us. Amy, real quick, I just want to turn back to Social Security for a second. Trump had said that he wants to get rid of the tax on Social Security. What would be the impact of that on the average American? What would that mean for their paychecks right now and for the prospect of them having Social Security when they reach retirement age?
Amy Hanaeur:
The Tax Policy Center did an analysis of this proposal and found that it would lower taxes for US households by an average of $550 a year. But at a big, big cost because it would end up reducing revenues in Social Security and Medicare by about $1.5 trillion with a T over the next decade. This would end up driving both programs into insolvency much faster, and so it would end up resulting in sharply reduced benefits for tens of millions of recipients. And the Tax Policy Center has not yet estimated, I don’t believe, the exact nature of those benefit reductions, but we know that Social Security is just one of our most important social programs, pulls a huge number of people out of poverty. The elderly used to be the poorest population age group in the United States, and after Social Security was put in place, they became the least likely to be poor among American households. So it’s really a huge part of our social safety net and just a huge part of our society.
Anna Helhoski:
Now, Trump and Harris don’t agree on very much, but one place where there is overlap is that both candidates have proposed to lift the tax on tips. Can you explain that for us and what it would mean for the average American, both those who receive tips and those who pay them?
Amy Hanaeur:
Getting rid of taxes on tips is probably more about politics than about creating a great public policy. First of all, a very small share of the workforce receives all of its income from tips. And so it would be kind of flawed because do we really think that a waitress who earns a very modest salary and a teacher’s aide or a teacher or a nurse’s aide who earns a really modest salary, do we really think that the waitress should pay a lower tax rate than a teacher or teacher’s aide or nurse’s aide who earns the same amount? And that would be the effect of this policy. It would also really encourage shifting some compensation to tips. So high-paid professionals could ask that their fees instead be structured as tips.
Now, Vice President Harris does have a check in place for her proposal that kind of gets at that because she has suggested ways that it could be targeted toward those earning under $75,000 a year. That certainly makes a big difference in terms of the possibility for gamesmanship by very wealthy earners. But fundamentally, we just think there are better ways at getting at helping low-wage workers who receive tips. Namely, we could get rid of the tipped wage. We could say that every worker deserves a minimum wage. The sub-wage for tipped workers is $2.13 an hour at the federal level. So we’re talking about a ridiculously low wage in 2024.
Anna Helhoski:
It seems like either candidate will struggle to bring forth most of these proposals if there’s not enough support in Congress. Either Harris’s or Trump’s proposals, what do you see there being congressional support for? And is there anything that Harris or Trump could do unilaterally?
Amy Hanaeur:
Obviously, a lot depends on the composition of Congress. So if either side gets a trifecta, if we have Republicans taking both Houses and the presidency, I would expect that former President Trump would be able to again cut taxes on billionaires and again cut taxes on corporations. I don’t think his Social Security proposals would go through under any party because Social Security is sort of famously the third rail of American politics, and it really does disrupt our social structures to think about reducing the funding available to pay for Social Security.
For Vice President Harris, if she were to get a trifecta, I think she would probably succeed in getting some of those revenue raisers. I could see her getting through the extensions of the individual tax cuts for those earning less than $400,000 but getting rid of them for those earning more. And in the perhaps most likely situation where we have divided government, I think a lot of this would be up for debate, and I think we’d end up seeing some mishmash of these two approaches.
Anna Helhoski:
Amy, what have we not seen Kamala Harris or Donald Trump weigh in on that you think is an oversight?
Amy Hanaeur:
There are pieces that are in Kamala Harris’s written proposals that don’t get a lot of attention. And one of the big ones is something very obscure called stepped-up basis. Sometimes people call it buy, borrow, and die. That basically says that for very wealthy people, if they acquire stocks or other assets that really grow in value over the time that they own those assets, that if they pass those on to heirs without selling them first, nobody ever pays taxes on the difference in value. So that’s always something that I think should get more attention. But it’s complicated to explain. As you can see with my efforts to explain it, it’s just complicated. And it’s easier to say, “We’re going to raise the corporate tax rate or we’re going to lower the corporate tax rate.” I think that’s something that could get more attention.
Anna Helhoski:
Is there anything else you want to call out about Harris or Trump’s tax plans?
Amy Hanaeur:
I would just say the big picture is: The Harris approach raises more revenue. It raises it primarily from the wealthiest and corporations. The Trump approach puts us deeper in debt and gives a lot more away to wealthy people and corporations. And both of them, I think, have some proposals that would help middle-class families on the tax side.
Anna Helhoski:
All right. Amy Hanaeur, thank you again for talking with me today.
Amy Hanaeur:
Yeah, thank you so much.
Anna Helhoski:
Sean, I want to emphasize one thing before we wrap up, and that’s how much authority the Executive Branch has to change taxes. The president does technically have the power to tax, but they generally don’t exercise that. What they do is press Congress to pass policies that they want. What we don’t know right now is what campaign promises will have bipartisan appeal once we have both a new administration and a new congressional makeup.
Sean Pyles:
You know, Anna, tax is a funny thing, where you make one change in one area and it can have drastic, sometimes unintended ripple effects in other areas. Two examples that come to mind are how Harris providing a tax credit for first-time home buyers could drive up home prices, and how Trump’s tax cuts exacerbated racial and wealth inequality. And these examples underscore how complicated and confusing tax policy can be. But it’s really, really important for all of us to engage with this since a number of components of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will sunset in 2025. So we have a unique opportunity right now to reshape taxes and our votes will have a hand in that.
Anna Helhoski:
And one thing that Amy Hanaeur didn’t delve too deeply into is the no tax on tips policy that both Trump and Harris are endorsing. But fortunately, listeners, we did go into no tax on tips in a previous episode. So have a listen to our August 21st episode on that topic, which we’ll also link to in today’s show notes.
Sean Pyles:
Anna, tell us what’s coming up in the fourth and final episode of the series.
Anna Helhoski:
Sean, we’re going to talk about two specific areas of policy that affect a large swath of voters: student loans and healthcare.
Eliza Haverstock:
The fate of the repayment plan is now largely in the hands of the courts. However, the president can influence the situation by directing the Justice Department how to proceed with appeals. Harris would likely continue to vigorously defend the SAVE plan in court. Meanwhile, Trump is not likely to defend SAVE.
Anna Helhoski:
For now, that’s all we have for this episode. Do you have a money question of your own? Turn to the Nerds and call or text us your questions at (901) 730-6373. That’s (901) 730-N-E-R-D. You can also email us at [email protected]. And remember, you can follow the show on your favorite podcast app, including Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and iHeartRadio to automatically download new episodes.
Sean Pyles:
This episode was produced by Tess Vigeland and Anna. I helped with editing. Rick VanderKnyff and Amanda Derengowski helped with fact-checking. Megan Maurer mixed our audio. And a big thank you to NerdWallet’s editors for all their help.
Anna Helhoski:
And here’s our brief disclaimer. We are not financial or investment advisors. This nerdy info is provided for general educational and entertainment purposes and may not apply to your specific circumstances.
Sean Pyles:
And with that said, until next time, turn to the Nerds.
Everywhere you turn, another ad is sharing the good news of a great deal. There’s only one catch: You’ve got to download their app to get it.
The trend in app-based rewards and offers is driven by many things at once. A prolonged period of high inflation made everything feel expensive to consumers. So they started making trades — eating in, buying store brands or waiting to make big purchases, for example. That set off alarm bells for companies as they saw sales slumping so much that price hikes couldn’t make up for it.
Meanwhile, in the background, technology has improved, making it easy and convenient to place an order or pay with a phone. And companies have realized their app-wielding customers are some of their best.
So how do companies bring inflation-weary shoppers and diners back or entice them to buy more often? They offer deals in the form of value meals, coupons and rewards. And they put the deals on their apps.
Price-conscious shoppers want a deal
Retailers know the mental math customers are doing right now when they decide where to spend their money. That’s why they’re clamoring to offer the best and most relevant deals to get people through their doors. In-app deals and rewards aren’t new, but they’ve become the perfect place to tempt customers with tailored offers using notifications, location-tracking information, order history or other data.
Take groceries, for example. Persistently high food prices have made people more price sensitive, making them hunt harder for a good deal, says Sean Turner, co-founder and chief technology officer at Swiftly, a retail tech company that offers digital platforms and data analytics to grocery stores.
“Because it’s such a high spend for consumers and there is so much variety of choice and how you allocate those dollars and how you trade up or down depending upon your budget, shoppers spend a bunch of time kind of trying to obsess and optimize over that pricing,” he says.
Saving time and money
Finding the right item at the right price can shape a person’s entire shopping trip, Turner says. “That’s the battleground for these retailers and that’s going to determine do I go to Lucky’s or do I go to Safeway or Raley’s this week?”
Historically, shoppers relied on weekly circulars that came in the newspaper and advertised the week’s price cuts and coupons. Now, those deals appear front and center in the store’s app.
And while you’re in the app, you can check the rest of your grocery list against the store’s inventory and prices, adding a layer of convenience people will come back for. “You want to know that it’s going to be there. Where is it? What’s the price going to be? And that’s how shoppers are using a lot of these retailer apps right now.”
For instance, recent “digital deals” on the app for QFC (part of the Kroger grocery chain) included $4.99 for frozen fish sticks and other products from Gorton’s ($6.99 without the app) and $5.99 for a box of six Kind bars ($7.99 without the app).
Creating perks for members
Forget punch cards. Companies hoping to secure customer loyalty have gone all out to build a list of membership perks designed around their apps. Customers typically don’t have to download the app to join the program and reap rewards, but some bonuses happen exclusively on the app. Here are a few examples:
Lululemon members get early access to new products on the company’s app, among other special privileges.
McDonald’s app users get points with each purchase that can be redeemed for free food. First-time app users get a free Big Mac with a $1 minimum purchase.
The North Face’s XPLR Pass lets members earn points toward rewards when they use its app to check in while visiting a national park or monument.
Concerns about privacy
What might seem like a killer deal comes with a cost. Every time you download an app, you’re agreeing to hand over your personal data to that company, says R.J. Cross, director of the Don’t Sell My Data campaign with PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. “We’re accidentally opting in to our data being collected all the time.”
It’s hard to know what purpose that data collection serves. The more that’s collected and stored — or sold to third parties — the more likely it’ll be exposed in a security breach, Cross says. “It’s not a transparent system. People have to be on their guard.”
Consumer advocates also fear how the use of personal data can influence pricing. Dynamic pricing generally refers to the use of technology to automatically change prices based on supply and demand. But what happens when a company knows a lot about you and your shopping habits and knows you can’t see what it’s charging other people for the same item?
“It’s a system that has the capacity to be predatory,” Cross says.
(Turner says Swiftly, which powers mostly regional and independent grocery stores’ apps, doesn’t invest in dynamic pricing technology for this reason. “There’s some sense that that might not be the most fair thing to consumers,” he says.)
Tip: Don’t download every app
Privacy risks aside, a trove of personal consumer data also enables companies to use targeted advertising to entice people to spend money. Maybe money they’d never planned to spend.
Not every deal is a deal, Cross warns. It’s more like a nudge. “It’s so permeated throughout our culture that we make it hard for someone to opt out of being barraged by so many targeted appeals and deals.”
She would have consumers avoid loyalty apps altogether and push back on companies that say you have to have an app to access something like a boarding pass for a flight or a ticket to a concert. But if you do get the app, be choosy, she says. “Maybe limit it to the ones you visit regularly instead of a one-time deal.”
If you do opt to download an app to your phone, make sure to review your privacy settings to avoid letting companies collect whatever data they want, including your activity on other apps.
“People get weird around money,” says Bobby Soler, a financial advisor with the firm Strategies for Wealth in New York City. “It can be really awkward with family members.”
He knows from firsthand experience. When it came to caring for his grandmother, his family avoided planning discussions, which led to stressful disagreements between siblings. He wants people to prevent that kind of situation by talking about money — even difficult topics like end-of-life planning — well in advance.
You want to know if your parents have enough money for retirement
Opening up the conversation by using a recent news article can be an easy way to start, says Dan Casey, founder of the financial firm Bridgeriver Advisors in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. You could mention that you read an article about the value of using a retirement calculator, for example, or how many people are concerned with having enough money.
That way, he says, “you’re just passing on knowledge,” and can avoid unintentionally seeming like you’re trying to find out what inheritance you might one day receive.
Try questions that evoke hopes and dreams, says Erika Wasserman, CEO of Your Financial Therapist based in the Miami, Florida area.
One question you can pose is, “Mom and Dad, what is retirement going to look like for you?” Then, you could follow up by asking about where they want to live or whether they plan to move.
“When you give people a chance to explain their vision, it gives you a different perspective and allows them to open up,” she says.
You want to make sure your parents or grandparents have end-of-life paperwork in place
“Focus on the fact that you really care about them,” says Annie Cole, a Vancouver, Washington-based money coach and author of the book “101 Ways to Earn More, Build Wealth, and Live Rich in Your 30s.”
She recently asked her dad if he had a will.
“We called out the elephant in the room and just said, ‘This might feel a little awkward,’” she says. That comment broke the ice and made everyone laugh, and then they had a productive conversation about his retirement plans.
Try giving siblings and other involved family members a heads up before broaching a heavy topic together, says Elaine Swann, a San Diego, California-based etiquette expert and author of the etiquette guide “Let Crazy Be Crazy.”
She warns against springing a conversation about estate planning on siblings or family members.
“If you have a group family text, bring up the fact that you want to have a conversation,” she says, then pick a mutually-convenient time. That way, they can be physically and mentally prepared.
You’re going on vacation together as an extended family
Have a conversation about vacation cost-sharing during the planning process of the trip, Casey says. If you are offering to host and pay for one element but not another, spell that out, he adds. And if you know a financially-strained family member can contribute in another way, such as cooking, discuss those contributions in advance, too.
Similarly, at a group dinner, it’s helpful to talk about splitting the bill before placing orders, Swann says.
“There’s nothing wrong with saying, ‘Hey, how would you like to split the bill?’ Have the conversation beforehand so it’s less awkward and you can sit back and enjoy the meal,” she says.
You’re going through a difficult financial period
“It’s OK to put a boundary in place,” says Wasserman. “You can say, ‘Right now I’m working through financial issues and I have the support I need, but I appreciate your love and support.'”
Family members often want to make sure you’re OK or at least have a plan in place. “They want to see you are handling it. That is just reassuring to people who love you.”
If you don’t want to talk about your situation, Swann suggests being blunt.
“That’s not something I want to talk about. So anyway, how was your vacation this year?” is a script that helps you firmly pivot to another topic. “Be prepared to shift the conversation,” she says.
Your family members keep asking you for money
If you agree to loan family members money, it should always be in writing, Casey says, including any agreement around when it will be repaid.
If you don’t want to loan family members money, then Cole suggests offering to help in non-financial ways, such as by preparing meals or caring for any pets. You can also be honest about why you’re declining to provide financial assistance.
“We say, ‘We don’t mix family and money in that way,’” Cole says. “That’s our saying, and people understand.”
Get more financial clarity with NerdWallet
Monitor your credit, track your spending and see all of your finances together in a single place.
Google “paycheck to paycheck” and you’ll be flooded with statistics that seem a bit suspect to an economist’s eye. Diving deeper into the spending habits of people who say they’re living with every dollar spoken for, it’s clear we’re not all defining paycheck to paycheck quite the same way. And it’s clear that some who assign themselves to this group could just be very efficient budgeters.
More than half of Americans (57%) say they’re currently living paycheck to paycheck, according to a nationally representative NerdWallet survey conducted online in July by The Harris Poll. In our survey, we didn’t define the phrase, as we wanted to measure the share of folks who identify with “living paycheck to paycheck” regardless of their finances. Then, we asked for some budget specifics.
Of those who said they’re living paycheck to paycheck, many regularly contribute to savings accounts (31%), retirement accounts (22%), or emergency savings funds (22%), all of which are important, but none of which are obligatory. And others include house cleaning services (15%) and subscription boxes (19%) among their regular monthly [expenses.
In fact, 42% of Americans with household incomes of $100,000 or more say they live paycheck to paycheck.
So, what does living paycheck to paycheck mean?
By not defining the phrase in our survey, we hoped to understand how people feel about their financial condition more than whether they fit a tidy definition. Generally, living paycheck to paycheck implies all or most of your money from one paycheck is gone before or right in time to receive the next. And for many people, it implies some level of financial hardship.
But, it turns out depleting one paycheck just in time for the other’s arrival doesn’t have to mean financial dire straits. In fact, our survey found many people who place themselves in this category manage to spend on some monthly luxuries as well as have emergency savings and retirement accounts.
Addressing the feeling of financial constraint
When someone says they’re living paycheck to paycheck, it could be that they’re tightly budgeted. Emergency funds and retirement accounts, for example, are generally features of more financially secure households.
Some popular approaches to budgeting involve allocating your income toward various categories — 50% for needs, 30% for wants and 20% for savings and debt payments, in the case of the 50-30-20 budget, for example. And if 100% of what you bring in is earmarked for various purchases or accounts, you could consider yourself paycheck to paycheck, yet still doing quite well.
If you’re feeling like the well is dry when your next paycheck arrives, take a closer look at how you’re allocating your monthly income. You may find yourself on-track to long-term financial goals and able to afford some of the extras each month that enrich your life, even if your spending account dwindles toward the end of the pay period. If this is the case, and the tightly allocated budgeting feels fine, pat yourself on the back for being an astute financial manager. But if the dwindling feels bad, consider budgeting a buffer into that primary spending account or loosening the limits on your variable “wants” expenses each month. In this way, your “fun money” comes from one place, it rarely runs completely dry and you enjoy a bit of flexibility.
When living paycheck to paycheck means serious hardship
For some, however, living paycheck to paycheck happens because the money coming into the home just isn’t enough to cover the needs of the household. In this case, clever budgeting can only get you so far. According to the Federal Reserve, 63% of adult Americans in 2023 could manage an unexpected expense of $400 using cash, savings or a credit card they paid off right away. There’s a good chance the remaining 37% would describe themselves as living paycheck to paycheck.
Building a $400 emergency fund can be a tall order when you truly have nothing leftover at the end of the month. But every bit that gets you closer can be helpful. While you incrementally build a small safety net, have a financial hardship plan in place should things take a turn for the worse.
Prioritize crucial expenses like housing, utilities, food and medical care.
Contact your creditors and other bill collectors to explain your situation and ask about any hardship programs they offer.
Identify local charities and organizations that can help in times of need and reach out to your state or county social services if you think you might qualify for government assistance.
METHODOLOGY
This July survey was conducted online within the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of NerdWallet from July 16-18, 2024, among 2,076 U.S. adults ages 18 and older. The sampling precision of Harris online polls is measured by using a Bayesian credible interval. For these studies, the sample data is accurate to within +/- 2.5 percentage points using a 95% confidence level. For complete survey methodologies, including weighting variables and subgroup sample sizes, please contact [email protected].
Disclaimer
NerdWallet disclaims, expressly and impliedly, all warranties of any kind, including those of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or whether the article’s information is accurate, reliable or free of errors. Use or reliance on this information is at your own risk, and its completeness and accuracy are not guaranteed. The contents in this article should not be relied upon or associated with the future performance of NerdWallet or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. Statements that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties as indicated by words such as “believes,” “expects,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should” or “anticipates” or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements may materially differ from NerdWallet’s presentation of information to analysts and its actual operational and financial results.